From the moment I received the key on Steam until today, I have come to two conclusions related to this text. The first is that if we did not get acquainted with a title during its prime-time or a few years later (and in the case of today's frequency of releasing new products, this period of time narrows even more), we do not feel nostalgic about it or we do not have to read it with your own free will, then we will probably have a different opinion from the fans who grew up with this title. For you to understand me well, let me compare it to "Dragon Ball". When this anime was broadcast on Polish TV, internet access was limited, while on the other channels there weren't many alternatives, and the threshold of entry was extremely low due to the simple plot. No wonder that it has become a cult title for a large group of people from my generation, not only in Poland, but practically all over the world. The group, even if quite numerous, is not all of them. I know people who consciously ignored this anime or didn't like it, and I know people who missed the hype on the title. For various reasons, lack of time, not being able to watch all episodes etc. Both those watching anime today and those who are not interested in them. All of these people will be more interested in the simplified plot, simple animation, usually underdeveloped characters. DBZ has an undisputed stake in a few things and also stands out positively over other titles in several respects, but it has grown old badly and has too little to offer these days. It is similar with the games I am discussing.
The second conclusion is that remasters, even those that significantly improve graphics and add options that could not be implemented on the day of release and a few years after it, are not always good for all players, but only for fans. The older the game is, the more it usually has larger losses, elements that were not thought of at the time of its production. This applies not only to games, but also movies or anime that are boring, over-stretched or have too little content. I mentioned movies and anime, for example, when reviewing "Legend of the Galactic Heroes", or somewhat in a different context, of both parts of "Terminator", so this time I will focus only on games. These defects can be seen in the easy missions, the length of the game, and the small amount of content to discover. Lest it were, of course, many older games are more difficult, but sometimes it was due to either artificially extending the game time or the desire to maximize earnings, if the title was, for example, slots. In the case of PC titles, many of these titles could be completed according to a specific pattern, typical for a given genre. Back then it was not so obvious, not only because of age but also because of experience. If we were older, had better reflexes, thought and acted more efficiently, we would finish many titles during one, two, maybe three longer sessions in front of the computer. It would be enough for them to consistently pass successive missions, which does not mean that we would have to rush it. This is the game that was released this year's remaster "Command and Conquer". This is a title intended primarily for fans and won't make other players love it.
I started with little enthusiasm, which is not befitting such a fan of these games, but that's how it is, when it is a realistic whim. This does not mean that I did not like the game, on the contrary, I am having a great time, I got a title that I have been waiting for over 20 years. It's just that "Tiberian Dawn" and "Red Alert" in the 2020 version made me painfully aware of what I wrote about in the introduction. In the lyrics about "WarCraft 1 & 2" and CnC 1995 and RA, I have mentioned several times that Westwood games presented better than Blizzard products in terms of story, story and characters. Only that was over 20 years ago and a lot has changed during that time. Sure, if you ignored everything that happened next, the classic "Command and Conqer" series are still better scripts, but that would be cherry-picking and setting the narrative into your own perspective. The third part of "WarCraft" came out and it developed all the ideas very well. In turn, Blizzard employees have learned to better tell a story and use the possibilities of such a lore. Westwood was not idle in this regard, but they did it less well IMO. No other part of the CnC cycle, be it in the form of the Tiberium or RA wars, was able to match the artistry of the creators of SC and WC. Just like in the '90s I was delighted with the plot of "Tiberian Dawn" and only liked "Red Alert", while playing the campaign this year I felt like I was playing "WarCraft 2", which is archaic and outdated games.
Maybe it's a purely subjective issue, but the TD scenario has aged in slightly better form. In my opinion, this is because the studio took the script more seriously and we got a real conflict that was however engaging and didn't contain that many funny scenes. I don't know if it was the intended effect or not, but Stalin, portrayed as a jester, or General Nikos Stavros as an incompetent coward, threw me out of my immersion. In the older game we had Joe Kucana aka. Kane, who was incomparably better guided and thoughtful character than anyone we saw in the newer Westwood title. There were additional threads in TD, which were a road to nowhere or insufficiently developed them (looking from the perspective of the entire series), but at least enriched the then world of NOD and GDI. We had threads about fake news, propaganda on both sides, Tiberium's toxic impact on nature and people, and testing of secret weapons, which was missing in the alternative version of World War 2. In the game about the Allies and the Soviets, there was space to introduce such elements, and we got nothing or almost nothing. The only thread that struck me in my memory are spy elements, super-technology tracking, the so-called "dark projects" (new weapons that are hidden from other countries and the public). Apart from that, maybe I did not notice something, because since I was a child I am a bit prejudiced against the plot of RA, but certainly Westwood's newer game is poorer in this respect. It is all the more painful that even in my opinion of a better game, I see a lot of empty fields that could be filled when the revamped version was released. Since they were doing the game almost from scratch, they could add a few missions to develop the story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that's what happened in the refreshed version of StarCraft 1. I didn't play it myself, but I heard from two sources I trust that some missions have been added to improve the single player campaign.
The plot of "Tiberian Dawn", like RA, presents an alternative version of our world. A meteorite with a raw material unknown to mankind falls to Earth. Tiberium, because it was named after the place where the stone of extraterrestrial origin fell (the Tiber River), becomes the most important resource on our planet. It affects stock markets, disrupts the balance of power in the world, and is generally used for many different things, mainly for profit. Two factions are fighting for them - GDI, which is the equivalent of NATO, and the NOD brotherhood, such an ISIS state, but with much greater influence, a more developed structure and financial and intellectual background. When we chose GDI, we fought in Europe, while NOD - we recaptured Africa from the rule of the good guys. As for "Red Alert", as I mentioned, this title also tells an alternative story. This time, Albert Einstein created an invention known as the Chronosphere, thanks to which the most famous Adolf in the world went to a different era. Nature, however, does not like a vacuum, and when an event is going to happen, it will happen one way or another. Stalin, being the strongest leader in Europe, occupies almost the entire continent. This time, regardless of the choice of the side of the conflict, we have one theater of action - Europe. If we elect the Allies, we recapture it from the hands of the Soviets and end it in Moscow, and if the Soviets we introduce a communist regime throughout the old continent.
When it comes to graphics, I will say similar to anime - I do not know about this aspect, so better not be influenced by my opinions. When it comes to the facts, the 2020 version offers both the old graphics and the refurbished in 4K. The interface has also been tidied up, which does not need to be moved so much (I mean the sidebar on which soldiers are recruited or new buildings and vehicles are built) and the quality of cutscenes has been improved. The acting ones still look bad and you can see the passage of time, especially the ones from "Red Alert", but the ones without human involvement look pretty good. Of course, they are far from the level of Blizzard from the times of the first "StarCraft", but they come from such an old game that they would have to be re-filmed. Overall, Command and Conquer 2020 is an incomparably better remaster than the infamous WarCraft 3: Reforged, which is painful for Blizzard mainly because Petroglyph and Lemon Sky Studios had a much harder job to do. Reforged needed "only" a refresh, some fixes, while "Tiberian Dawn" and the first part of RA are grandparents not much younger than the first part of "Doom" or "WarCraft: Orcs and Humans", so there was no question of any corrections. All the structures, units and elements of the map had to be drawn from scratch, because there would be too many empty spaces that would be particularly visible after zooming in on the map. I do not have a laptop that is too powerful at the moment, I also did not configure the graphics settings, I played with the default settings and I play well. There are slowdowns, slight lags, but only in the case of starting the game, sudden computer overload. I was playing with a few programs running in the background and listening to podcasts on YouTube. So far, I haven't had such problems in large battles, and the number of FPS has never dropped below 60 (except for the situations I wrote above). The graphics are unlikely to make an electrifying impression on you, but it is nice, legible and the game does not burden the computer too much.
EA added to the remastered version missions that hit the console versions of games, new modding tools, a gallery of add-ons, new songs recorded by Frank Klepacki and the band Tiberian Sons. I am especially happy about the new maps I wanted to play 15 years ago and the music. Starting with the maps, I will definitely go through them eventually, maybe even during the Christmas break, as soon as I have completed Part 1 of Quake. I played a few of them a few months ago and they do not seem difficult or extensive, which I am not surprised at all, because they ended up on consoles. I don't know what the controls on PlayStation, Sega Saturn or Nintendo 64 looked like, I only played RA on PlayStation, which was surprisingly smooth and easy to play. I assume that in the case of "Tiberian Dawn" the controls were not so simple - Westwood had no experience, and even if another studio was responsible for console ports, the RTSs on these platforms were even more exotic than today. Going back to the mods and the improved board editor - it's a great thing and I would definitely enjoy it, but it was 15 years ago at the latest. Maybe 10 years ago I would have been interested, but probably not for long. He has nothing to offer me. Well, unless some fanboy CnC makes a remastered version of "Tiberian Sun" before the EA-Petroglyph-LemonSky trio does it, then I'll be happy to use it. It would be different if it was an editor for "WarCraft 3" - I would love to play refreshed maps like DotA and other AOS. Of course, different from the one that was added to the Reforged version, because Blizzard shot him and the entire remaster.
The soundtrack for both games, one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard. I have loved listening to it for over 20 years and I have a great fondness for it. Before the game was released, I was concerned about whether it would be closer to the original or the revised version that was later released by Westwood. Luckily for me, the musician has made something closer to the original soundtrack and there are hardly any new elements that have kept me entertained for many years. Not only did Frank Klepacki re-record all the previous songs, but we also got a few new songs by him and the band Tiberian Sons, which made me feel like in the second half of the 90s. Tiberian Sons reminds me of Level 70 Elite Tauren Chieftain, a team made up of Blizzard employees who recorded several songs for WC3 and WoW, such as Rogues do it from behind and Power of the Horde. Both groups record music on the border of hard-rock and metal, but there is one difference between them - the band associated with CnC uses elements of electronic music. The same is with the game soundtrack, we have slightly stronger guitar pieces as well as those recorded with electronic instruments. Many songs combine both genres, but we also have sharp, battle-themed music themes as well as calmer ambient. My attitude to this soundtrack is extremely personal (this is the first RTS I started to love), so it's hard for me to judge if it's objectively good, but I can certainly count it among the better. I've never had this fun playing CnC, this game is an example of how you should change your soundtrack in a remaster. Fans will find what they liked in the first part, but stronger and better. Act on Instict, my favorite track from the original, is not as good as the original, but the new version is good enough that I ignore it. The rest of the soundtrack is pure gold, a dream come true for me as a fan. Both Hell March songs sound very epic, similar with Grinder, Command and Conquer is my new favorite song in the universe, and Slave to the System, No Mercy and I got a present for ya are no less epic. And in the Collector's Edition I also got a usb that looks like a Tiberium crystal. Make your Christmas dreams come true.
As for the multiplayer, I won't say much about it. When the game was in its prime-time, I couldn't play over the net. I did have access to the Internet, but since it was an ordinary modem, it would not be possible without a large amount of laggs. Currently, I prefer to avoid this entertainment mode because I don't have the time or the desire. Ie. time may be found, but when it comes to willingness ... I have spent tens of thousands of hours playing Wc3, DotA, LoLa and a lot less in AoE2 or "StarCraft" and I'm saturated for the rest of my life when it comes to matches against other players.
However, I can consider whether CnC 2020 will achieve success in this field. Currently, RTS is not such a popular genre as several years ago. Yes, they are not dead, as some say, but they are far from being popular. One or two RTSs per year is enough for players. This is due to MOBA games, the genre that was created thanks to the third part of "WarCraft". Before anyone gets a grip - yes, its seeds were already in the previous installment of this game and "StarCraft 1", but they are so archaic in relation to WC3 that I do not mention them. Players don't like watching long streams anymore, preferring 20 or 40-minute matches instead. For this reason, LoL or DotA are more dynamic than 10 years ago. Online RTS matches don't last much longer, but you have to control too many things, which is less interesting for most modern players. Instead, they prefer to watch 5v5 matches as 10 heroes fight each other to conquer the Nexus. EA declares that it wants to develop the multi mode and introduce the title to e-sports games. They tried to do that with RA3 and CnC3, but they didn't really succeed because too few players wanted to play them. However, in the case of the games I review, it may be different - they are not too complicated, which does not mean that they are trivial. At the same time, they are suitably dynamic, the maps are small, which means that combat takes place quickly. Therefore, the game has a good chance to meet the expectations of modern players. Will he do it? I don't know, it's been a long time since the premiere and I haven't heard of any tournaments online yet. This, however, may be because I'm not really interested in them.
In summary, I don't know if the game will appeal to people who have never played classic RTS games. Maybe it's not the best comparison, but that's what came to my mind first - CnC2020 is an analog clock that was good in the 90s, but with the development of technology and electronic gadgets, it becomes more and more redundant. Which doesn't mean it's useless, just a lot of later games, even if those had a smaller budget or worse producers, do their job better. You may like this analog clock, because you will like its old-school design, maybe you will install it in your living room or bedroom, but a good electronic clock works better in every respect. It is easier to set up, you can adjust the volume, change the alarm clock, it can be moved more easily from place to place. And that aesthetics is worse? Well, for the most part, functionality matters. "Command and Conquer" will surely find its niche, but I don't know how active it will be in promoting it and developing the game. It is hard to say how it will be. The RA and CnC fan base is not as numerous as in the case of "WarCraft" and "StarCraft", and I also think that it is less active. And when it comes to the game itself, it's a good trip to the past and a lot of nostalgia for the fans, but if you're not a Westwood game fan, I recommend the AoE or "Warcraft 3" remasters. The latter title is unfortunately only available on torrents, because Blizzard has blocked the sale and you can only buy junk Reforged.